Sam Harris on Orlando and the Response of Obama, Trump & Clinton

[calgaryblood]

Wow Corsi he never said the word "Islam" before terrorism and didn't say it before Radicilism? what do you think he meant when he said terrorism and Radicilism when talking about an event that was carried out by an Islamic terrorist? Jeez I guess Obama really loves terrorists. I mean, Islamic terrorists.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Only for people who are incapable of thinking in thought experiments. His statements are clear to people who have the ability to think in the manner required by philosophy - hypotheticals, corner cases, thought experiments, and very narrow bands of applicability of particular principles. If you remove the conclusion from the specific premises that underlie it, as people are often wont to do, the conclusion suggests, to someone who's barely paying attention, something different from what it actually was.

The problem is that much of the public is only capable of thinking in 240p.

Ah, the old "the only reason you don't respect him as much as I do is because you're not as smart as I am." When your argument is that the majority of people are incapable of grasping Harris, that their thinking is not capable of the required clarity, or that the only reason one might not find him perfectly clear or reasonable is because of their own completely inability to interpret basic elements of debate and conversation, you come off smug and vapid. Not intellegent and reasoned.

His statements are often unclear and clumsy, he gets in his own way more than he bothers to be clear. His conclusions are interesting but his reasoning for them is at times incredibly weak.

He is an intellectual for the pseudo-intellectual age. His need to be inflammatory and make points for shock value are indicative of his desperation to be heard and to be known. He needs people to hear what he's saying, not for the purpose of argument, but for the purpose of ego. I think anyone who knows of Harris would be happy to admit that he is passionate about himself. The weak and unnecessary retread video posted at the start of this conversation is evidence of that.

Harris can be brilliant. But he can also be the enormous joke that peter12 thinks he is, and that is his own doing. Harris is respectable but rarely admirable. Those who do truly admire him generally do out of a confirmation bias and cease to engage in any further intellectual thought pattern past "Harris must be defended or else my own views are suspect." It's no different than religious belief, in that sense. Harris is providing opinions and musing that vary greatly in their validity or substance.

And I hope this isn't being confused as me being one of those dangerous liberals Harris fears, set on taking away freedoms of speech and curtailing language to the least offensive. I absolutely love Hitchens, who shared some similar thought patterns on Islam, he just wasn't quite the idiot Harris can be.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm not going to bother going any further in arguing with you on this topic, after you picked out a portion of a long post, gave it the most uncharitable interpretation possible, accused me of being "smug and vapid", and then made a bunch of unsupported statements. Incidentally, Peter12's criticism of him was nonsensical in that Harris isn't a Buddhist of any stripe, but that's beside the point.

As for what I actually said there, I'm in fact mirroring the observations made by Neil Degrasse Tyson in the podcast I posted earlier. While I'm not going to appeal to his authority and suggest that that makes me right and you wrong, I will say that I'm okay being in his company on this and leave it at that. Feel free to ignore the guy if you don't like him.

[nik-]

I find it funny, at the end Hitchens was more vitriolic towards Islam than you claim Harris to be.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Buster

People naturally recoil at sweeping statements, and generalizations, even when they are valid.

I agree with everything you've said. Its unfortunate because I think proper terminology is sometimes overtaken by the lazy and ruined.

The only issues I take with Harris directly regarding criticisms of Islam is when he does fall into the trap of bigotry. His desire, for instance, that every man in a turban aught to be screened carefully at the airport is an example. He doesn't omit white people from screening, but does specifically say that anyone who looks like they even COULD be Muslim should go through extra screening. White children and white elderly people appear fine to let through, but nobody that 'looks' Muslim, which we can gather the meaning behind. These turban wearing people should be thankful they're being profiled, of course.

That's more indicative of islamophobia than reason, logic, or intelligence,I think, given the regularity of non-Muslims who wear turbans, the amount of people who aren't Muslim that might 'look the part,' and the incredibly low likelihood of terrorist acts on a plane.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

I find it funny, at the end Hitchens was more vitriolic towards Islam than you claim Harris to be.

Absolutely.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The only issues I take with Harris directly regarding criticisms of Islam is when he does fall into the trap of bigotry. His desire, for instance, that every man in a turban aught to be screened carefully at the airport is an example. He doesn't omit white people from screening, but does specifically say that anyone who looks like they even COULD be Muslim should go through extra screening. White children and white elderly people appear fine to let through, but nobody that 'looks' Muslim, which we can gather the meaning behind. These turban wearing people should be thankful they're being profiled, of course.

Here is what he has said on this.

Originally Posted by Harris

I once wrote a short essay about airline security that provoked a ferocious backlash from readers. In publishing this piece, I’m afraid that I broke one of my cardinal rules of time (and sanity) management: Not everything worth saying is worth saying oneself. I learned this the hard way once before, in discussing the ethics of torture and collateral damage (see below), but this time the backlash was even more unpleasant and less rational.

One line in my article raised a tsunami of contempt for me in liberal and secular circles:

Of course, many of my detractors (like Greenwald) have used this quotation in ways calculated to make readers believe that I want dark-skinned people singled out—and not just in our airports, but everywhere. What my critics always neglect to say, however, is that in the article in which that sentence appears, I explicitly include white, middle-aged men like me in the profile (twice). This still leaves many millions of travelers outside the profile. My point is that we should be giving less scrutiny to people who obviously aren’t jihadists. Whatever the practical constraints are on implementing such a policy, I remain willing to bet my life that the woman in the photo below is not a suicide bomber. Which is, of course, to say that the TSA employee who appears to be searching her body for explosives is not only inconveniencing the woman herself, along with everyone in line behind her, but putting people’s lives in jeopardy by squandering her limited attentional resources.



To assert that ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, dress, traveling companions, behavior in the terminal, and other outward appearances offer no indication of a person’s beliefs or terrorist potential is either quite crazy or totally dishonest. We are paying a very high price for this obscurantism—and the price could grow much higher in an instant. We have limited resources, and every moment spent searching a woman like the one pictured above, or the children seen in the videos I linked to in my original article, is a moment in which someone or something else goes unobserved. Suicidal terrorism is overwhelmingly a Muslim phenomenon. If you grant this, it follows that applying equal scrutiny to Mennonites is a dangerous waste of time.

In the hope of achieving some clarity on the issue of profiling, I let the anti-profiling security expert Bruce Schneier write a guest post on my blog. I then engaged in a long and rather tedious debate with him. It seems that few minds were changed, including my own. I heard from many readers who took my side in the debate—among them some who have worked in airport security, U.S. Customs, the FBI, Delta Force, fraud detection, and other areas where real-time threat assessments must be made. I also received unequivocal support from Saudis, Pakistanis, Indians, Egyptians, and others who are regularly profiled. However, I heard as well from many people who thought that Schneier mopped the floor with me. Some of these readers continue to wonder why I, being ostensibly committed to reason, haven’t publicly conceded defeat and changed my view.

There seems to be a consensus, even among my critics, that no one does airline security better than the Israelis (Schneier himself admits this). But, as I pointed out, and Schneier agreed, the Israelis profile in every sense of the term—racially, ethnically, behaviorally, by nationality and religion, etc. In the end, Schneier’s argument came down to a claim about limited resources: He argued that we are too poor (and, perhaps, too stupid) to effectively copy the Israeli approach. That may be true. But pleading poverty and ineptitude is very different from proving that profiling doesn’t work, or that it is unethical, or that the link between the tenets of Islam and jihadist violence isn’t causal.

Schneier’s opposition to profiling had almost nothing to do with the reasons that many people find it controversial. But none of my critics seemed to notice this. Nor did they notice when Schneier conceded that the most secure system would use a combination of profiling and randomness. He simply argued that profiling for the purpose of airline security is too expensive and impractical. But I was not vilified because I advocated something expensive and impractical. I was vilified because my critics believe that I support a policy that is shockingly unethical, well known to be ineffective, and the product of near-total confusion about the causes of terrorism.

My position on profiling is very simple: We should admit that we know what we are looking for (suicidal terrorists) and that certain people obviously require less scrutiny than others. We should scan everyone’s luggage, of course, because bombs can be placed there without a person’s knowledge. But given scarce resources, we can’t afford to waste our time and attention pretending to think that every traveller is equally likely to be affiliated with al Qaeda.

Please point me to the part where he talks about profiling everyone in a turban. He's said he himself fits the profile. He doesn't wear a turban. WTF are you talking about?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Here is what he has said on this.



Please point me to the part where he talks about profiling everyone in a turban. He's said he himself fits the profile. He doesn't wear a turban. WTF are you talking about?

Yes, I've read that. I also said in the post you quoted that he never said white people should be exempt. Who are you arguing with?

Here's what he said:

Needless to say, a devout Muslim should be free to show up at the airport dressed like Osama bin Laden, and his wives should be free to wear burqas. But if their goal is simply to travel safely and efficiently, wouldn’t they, too, want a system that notices people like themselves?

Describe what "dressed like Osama bin Laden" means to you. There is literally only one distinguishable piece of clothing he wore all the time.

Are you arguing that he means "people in turbans AND OTHER PEOPLE!"? Because that's no less an example of bigotry. You know that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I don't agree that it's no less an example of bigotry; what we're talking about is essentially negative profiling. In other words, the guy who's dressed like Osama bin Laden, and Sam Harris, and you and I, presumably, should all be given scrutiny at airport security. However, the 80 year old japanese woman can safely be let through security, because it's a safe bet that she is not going to attempt to take control of the plane or blow it up. That's all that's being asked for here. Searching her is an act of security theatre, and there isn't time to give full attention to everyone in line.

Here's the question put another way: let's say you're in the airport security line. Look around. Is there anyone you'd be willing to bet your life isn't a terrorist?

If it's me, the answer is yes: about 20% of the people going through airport security, I am very confident are not any sort of terrorist, for a variety of reasons. I would prefer that any resources that were going to be put towards searching those people were instead directed at the 80% I think are more likely to be a terrorist, even though they're still really unlikely to be such. And I'm not even trained in what to look for.

[calgaryblood]

Maybe they aren't searching the old Japanese lady for bombs?

Would theses Japanese ladies get a pass under Harris's conditions?

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/thr...orth-of-drugs/

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Maybe they aren't searching the old Japanese lady for bombs?

Would theses Japanese ladies get a pass under Harris's conditions?

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/thr...orth-of-drugs/

How is it possible that a reasoned, not-at-all-bigotry process like "screen anyone who could be a Muslim" and Corsi's own reasoned, totally logical process "don't screen old Japanese ladies!" could fail us?

It's almost as if... criminals would immediately capitalise on known "passes" through security. I guess we didn't solve the rampant issue of terrorism on planes at all. To boot, now we have a drug mule problem! Dang!

[nik-]

You guys think that this article has more impact on the argument than it does.

No one is suggesting stop screening everyone but Muslims. Everyone goes through security in an airport and no one is suggesting this change.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Aren't drugs screened by an entirely separate set of standards / a different process? One which we're not presently talking about?

It's a reasonable response to say that the people we're trying to catch will exploit any soft spots we create in our own system, which works in the case of drug smuggling. Do you think it works in the case of jihadism? E.g. will ISIS start sending elderly asian grandfathers, or hyperactive six year olds, or Betty White look-alikes to do their bombings? I have a feeling that might not work.

Let's take another angle at this. Say there's a suicide bombing in Washington. The bomber declares allegiance to ISIS before blowing himself up, along with anyone nearby. It turns out the bomber is a local resident. Law enforcement now needs to investigate, find out if he had any accomplices or other contacts, find out if there are other people who planned this with him and might be planning other attacks soon. In order to get this information, do you think they're more likely to get helpful information by a) asking people at the buddhist temple near his residence; or b) asking at the local mosque?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by nik-

You guys think that this article has more impact on the argument than it does.

No one is suggesting stop screening everyone but Muslims. Everyone goes through security in an airport and no one is suggesting this change.

Then what exactly is he suggesting by posting a picture of an old white lady being searched and the saying that's actually more dangerous because it's wasting resources on an old white lady who obviously isn't a terrorist. Seems to me he wants to turn a blind eye to people who don't fit his description of a Terrorist even if a white male also fits his profile.

Sure everyone will get checked in his dream world but his system is set up to fail when he starts letting old people pass through easily.

How easy would it be for a terrorist to plant a bomb (in Harris's and Corsis dream airport)in an old ladies suitcase knowing she won't be as screened as the next middle aged man beside her?

[nik-]

How are you getting to the point where an old lady's suitcase isn't even screened?

You're inventing an argument no one has put forward.

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Aren't drugs screened by an entirely separate set of standards / a different process? One which we're not presently talking about?

It's a reasonable response to say that the people we're trying to catch will exploit any soft spots we create in our own system, which works in the case of drug smuggling. Do you think it works in the case of jihadism? E.g. will ISIS start sending elderly asian grandfathers, or hyperactive six year olds, or Betty White look-alikes to do their bombings? I have a feeling that might not work.

Haven't you ever travelled overseas? Do you go through two different processes?

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by nik-

How are you getting to the point where an old lady's suitcase isn't even screened?

You're inventing an argument no one has put forward.

Did you even bother reading what I said? I said "passed through more easily" not she won't get screened.

I even made a point to say "everyone will get checked".

[Buster]

At some point, the likelihood of an individual being a terrorist getting on a plane goes from "vanishingly small" to "essentially zero."

I see no reason to screen those people who fall into the latter camp. The fact that it requires an arbitrary line somewhere should not disincline us to move in that direction.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by calgaryblood

Did you even bother reading what I said? I said "passed through more easily" not she won't get screened.

I even made a point to say "everyone will get checked".

So then what are you talking about?

White lady has bomb put in her bag because no one will check her?

What do you define as "easily"? Do old white people still not have to have their bags scanned and walk through metal detectors? Yes.

Is anyone suggesting that stop? No.

[Fuzz]

Israel has massive security fears, and they use racial profiling. Seams to be working....